Ethics: Advertising on Delphi Forums [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

CraigSca

12-26-2006, 07:18 AM

On the Delphi Forums, I am a basic member, so I am unable to read the forums without advertising between each response in a particular thread. Among the forums I regularly check, I'm a big fan of the Tabletop Sports forum. Making the regular rotation of advertisements I see is the following:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%" rowSpan=3></TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>Ads by Google (http://services.google.com/feedback/abg?url=http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx%3Fwebtag%3Dtabletopsports%26nav%3Dkeywords&hl=en&client=ca-pub-2093616136278178&adU=www.MatrixGames.com&adT=Out+of+the+Park&adU=cards.somworld.com/&adT=Vintage+Strat-O-Matic&adU=www.BaltimoreChop.com&adT=APBA+Baseball+Game+Items&adU=www.replaybb.com&adT=Replay+Sports+Board+Games&adU=SimDynasty.com&adT=Play+Against+Human+Owners&adU=www.WaggleProShop.com&adT=GOLO+Golf+Dice+Game&adU=www.NAQgames.com&adT=NAQ+is+Big-Time+FUN&adU=www.MrSuperGames-Jump.com&adT=Baseball+board+game&adU=BaseballGuru.com&adT=The+Guru%27s+Baseball+Game&adU=BaseballComputerGames.GizmoCafe.com&adT=Baseball+Computer+Games&adU=www.ourfamilygame.com&adT=Original+Gay+Trivia+Game&adU=www.Shopping.com&adT=Baseball+Game&adU=www.kbones.com&adT=Knucklebones+Magazine&adU=www.BoardGames.com&adT=Board+Games+SuperStore&adU=Overstock.com&adT=Board+Games&adU=ComparisonWarehouse.com&adT=Baseball+Board+Game&adU=ShopWiki.com&adT=Board+game&adU=www.mookiegifts.com&adT=Cocktail-Opoly+Brew-Opoly&adU=BoardGamesCatalog.com&adT=Baseball+Board+Game&adU=www.tc.umn.edu&adT=Football+board+game&done=1) </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Out of the Park (http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/iclk?sa=l&ai=BD1C6gx-RRbP5L5KQ0AKjy73iBKqE1g2sktCMAsCNtwHQ2REQARgBIIrhhgIoFDAAOABQzuv9iQRgyfamjNCk5A-YAaCmpw6gAZLg7P0DqgEVMzQ5NjkzNzEzNCs5ODc4Nzk4NjYwsgEXZm9ydW1zLmRlbHBoaWZvcnVtcy5jb23IAQHaAVJodHRwOi8vZm9ydW1zLmRlbHBoaWZvcnVtcy5jb20vbi9wZngvZm9ydW0uYXNweD93ZWJ0YWc9dGFibGV0b3BzcG9ydHMmbmF2PWtleXdvcmRzqAMB&num=1&adurl=http://www.matrixgames.com/games/game.asp%3Fgid%3D315&client=ca-pub-2093616136278178) There's Nothing Better than PureSim Play Any Team from 1900 to 2005!
www.MatrixGames.com (http://www.MatrixGames.com)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Does anyone else see a potential issue here?

QuikSand

12-26-2006, 07:23 AM

As I recall, this isn't the first time that this little niche has seen this sort of thing. I honestly can't recall who has done what to whom... but I'm sure it will come along. (Wasn't there a phony press release floated about an OOTP release being delayed or canceled?)

vtbub

12-26-2006, 09:00 AM

It's all about buying the keywords to get your product out there. Yeah, I think it's in the grey area, but eBay does it for everything.

Shaun Sullivan

12-26-2006, 11:52 AM

kcchief19

12-26-2006, 07:03 PM

In case anyone cares, I have nothing to do with this or any of the PureSim advertising done by Matrix. I don't think it's awful, but it is a gray area. That said, the other day I was searching for PureSim on www.download.com (http://www.download.com) and low and behold OOTP uses PureSim in it's search keywords, so it shows up when I search for PureSim :)

I guess everyone is doing it.
FWIW, I'm VERY DISAPPOINTED to see that response.

Using search keywords is one thing. I don't think OOTP using PureSim as a key word is wrong nor vice versa. I don't think there is a problem with Coca-Cola and Pepsi doing the same thing -- what you're essentially doing is looking for customers who are interested in a similar product. Is it slimy? Yes, but it's not deceptive.

The example above is EXTREMELY deceptive. If I search "PureSim" on Download.com, I see a link clearly labeled PureSim, and it's a link for PureSim. I see a link labeled Out of the Park and it's a link for OOTP. Certainly it rides on the PureSim coattails by coming up on the search result, but at no time am I confused as to what I'm clicking on and what I should get.

That is NOT way CraigSca is citing. What Craig is showing is that the ad itself says "Out of the Park." I would conclude based on that ad that Out of the Park is a MatrixGames product and that following the link will take me to Out of the Park. It does not. This is almost classic bait and switch. The purpose of that ad is to make people think they are getting OOTP and giving them PureSim. That is dishonest at best, immoral at least and illegal at worst.

I wouldn't expect any differently from MatrixGames because they have demonstrated their character repeatedly in the past in terms of sports sims and I think their reputation is cemented. If you choose to affiliate with an operation like that, it's your choice.

I also completely recognize that you have no control over their advertising. What would have been the responsible thing to do is request that Matrix change the ad to read PureSim, not Out of the Park and tell them you won't do business with them in the future if they persist associating your product with deceptive advertising.

I read your response as condoning that type of advertising practice. If that is the case, I think that is sad and disappointing. It also makes me want to never purchase one of your products and recommond to others not to purchase your products.

You have to do what you think is best. But I wouldn't expect continued support from this community if that's what you think is best.

WVUFAN

12-26-2006, 08:11 PM

The example above is EXTREMELY deceptive. If I search "PureSim" on Download.com, I see a link clearly labeled PureSim, and it's a link for PureSim. I see a link labeled Out of the Park Baseball and it's a link for OOTP. Certainly it rides on the PureSim coattails by coming up on the search result, but at no time am I confused as to what I'm clicking on and what I should get.

If a person is looking for "Out of the Park Baseball" and sees a link for "PureSim", and thinks that the two games are the same, it's THE CUSTOMER'S FAULT, not the company distributing the game, and certainly not the person creating the game (who had nothing to do how it's advertised). It's like if someone searches for Coke and sees Pepsi, orders it thinking it's Coke. Is it Pepsi's fault? No. It's the customer's, for being too damn dumb to understand or even ATTEMPT to understand the difference between the two games.

That is NOT way CraigSca is citing. What Craig is showing is that the ad itself says "Out of the Park Baseball." I would conclude based on that ad that Out of the Park is a MatrixGames product and that following the link will take me to Out of the Park.

And you would be wrong, and an examination of the games would show that you would be wrong. If you're ordering the game without understanding what you're ordering, it's still your fault.

It does not. This is almost classic bait and switch. The purpose of that ad is to make people think they are getting OOTP and giving them PureSim. That is dishonest at best, immoral at least and illegal at worst.

I disagree. It's none of the above.

I wouldn't expect any differently from MatrixGames because they have demonstrated their character repeatedly in the past in terms of sports sims and I think their reputation is cemented. If you choose to affiliate with an operation like that, it's your choice.

Ah, here's the gyst of your post, KChief ... allow me to paraphrase: "I don't like Matrix Games, so I'm gonna rag on Shaun for associating for a company I don't like, and then come up with nonsensical reasons for doing so"

You have to do what you think is best. But I wouldn't expect continued support from this community if that's what you think is best.

Speak for yourself. I think this community will support a good game regardless of who distributes it.

gstelmack

12-26-2006, 08:19 PM

Isn't there a trademark thing or something here? I mean, if McDonald's used a tagline "The King of Burgers", do you think they wouldn't be in court over it?

st.cronin

12-26-2006, 08:23 PM

*yawn*

kingfc22

12-26-2006, 08:28 PM

Need more Maximim Football

kcchief19

12-26-2006, 09:06 PM

If a person is looking for "Out of the Park Baseball" and sees a link for "PureSim", and thinks that the two games are the same, it's THE CUSTOMER'S FAULT, not the company distributing the game, and certainly not the person creating the game (who had nothing to do how it's advertised). It's like if someone searches for Coke and sees Pepsi, orders it thinking it's Coke. Is it Pepsi's fault? No. It's the customer's, for being too damn dumb to understand or even ATTEMPT to understand the difference between the two games.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't understand CraigSca's post and haven't seen the ad. I didn't understand Craig's post either and went to the Delph forums. What you said above DOES NOT match this instance whatsoever, unfortunately.

The link DOES NOT say PureSim -- it says "Out of the Park" in big bold letters The text is hyperlinked to the Matrix Web site with the page for PureSim. If you click on a link that says "Out of the Park," I think you should reasonably expect that it will link to Out of the Park Baseball.

You're extension of my analogy completely misses what is happening here. It is not someone searching for Coke, seeing Pepsi and ordering it think it's Coke. It's someone searching for Coke, seeing Coke and getting directed to Pepsi.

Just out of curiousity, what would you say about an ad that looked like this?

Front Office Football: The College Years (http://www.easports.com/ncaa07/) There is nothing like NCAA Football 2007
EA Sports (http://www.easports.com)

If you think that's acceptable behavior, you and I have two completely different value systems. To each his own.

kcchief19

12-26-2006, 09:11 PM

Ah, here's the gyst of your post, KChief ... allow me to paraphrase: "I don't like Matrix Games, so I'm gonna rag on Shaun for associating for a company I don't like, and then come up with nonsensical reasons for doing so"
And for the record, no I won't allow you to paraphrase because you have completely missed the point. This type of characterization and remak is not consistent with your usual positive and strong contributions here. Please don't misuse my words and attribute misleading accusations against me.

Sweed

12-26-2006, 09:35 PM

FWIW, I'm VERY DISAPPOINTED to see that response.

Using search keywords is one thing. I don't think OOTP using PureSim as a key word is wrong nor vice versa. I don't think there is a problem with Coca-Cola and Pepsi doing the same thing -- what you're essentially doing is looking for customers who are interested in a similar product. Is it slimy? Yes, but it's not deceptive.

The example above is EXTREMELY deceptive. If I search "PureSim" on Download.com, I see a link clearly labeled PureSim, and it's a link for PureSim. I see a link labeled Out of the Park Baseball and it's a link for OOTP. Certainly it rides on the PureSim coattails by coming up on the search result, but at no time am I confused as to what I'm clicking on and what I should get.

That is NOT way CraigSca is citing. What Craig is showing is that the ad itself says "Out of the Park Baseball." I would conclude based on that ad that Out of the Park is a MatrixGames product and that following the link will take me to Out of the Park. It does not. This is almost classic bait and switch. The purpose of that ad is to make people think they are getting OOTP and giving them PureSim. That is dishonest at best, immoral at least and illegal at worst.

I wouldn't expect any differently from MatrixGames because they have demonstrated their character repeatedly in the past in terms of sports sims and I think their reputation is cemented. If you choose to affiliate with an operation like that, it's your choice.

I also completely recognize that you have no control over their advertising. What would have been the responsible thing to do is request that Matrix change the ad to read PureSim, not Out of the Park and tell them you won't do business with them in the future if they persist associating your product with deceptive advertising.

I read your response as condoning that type of advertising practice. If that is the case, I think that is sad and disappointing. It also makes me want to never purchase one of your products and recommond to others not to purchase your products.

You have to do what you think is best. But I wouldn't expect continued support from this community if that's what you think is best.

I agree with kcchief19, highly deceptive and a company I would shy away from doing any business with.

WVUFAN

12-26-2006, 10:48 PM

The link DOES NOT say PureSim -- it says "Out of the Park Baseball" in big bold letters The text is hyperlinked to the Matrix Web site with the page for PureSim. If you click on a link that says "Out of the Park Baseball," I think you should reasonably expect that it will link to Out of the Park Baseball.

You're extension of my analogy completely misses what is happening here. It is not someone searching for Coke, seeing Pepsi and ordering it think it's Coke. It's someone searching for Coke, seeing Coke and getting directed to Pepsi.

Just out of curiousity, what would you say about an ad that looked like this?

Front Office Football: The College Years (http://www.easports.com/ncaa07/) There is nothing like NCAA Football 2007
EA Sports (http://www.easports.com)

If you think that's acceptable behavior, you and I have two completely different value systems. To each his own.

Would I think that NCAA Football 2007 was the same as FOF: TCY? Assuming I wasn't already aware of FOF products, no I would automatically buy it. I would do a search for FOF and be able to see they're not the same game.

If the titles were the same, then yeah, I see your point, but the game names aren't the same, so I wouldn't blindly assume that the games were the same. That's my point -- too much people aren't smart enough to do research before they buy a product, then get mad when what they thought they bought isn't what they did. People need to shoulder much of the responsibility.

Would I do it if I owned a computer game company? No. Is it done commonly? Yes.

Most importantly, would I blame the game creator for someone clearly not within his control? Absolutely not.

And for the record, no I won't allow you to paraphrase because you have completely missed the point. This type of characterization and remak is not consistent with your usual positive and strong contributions here. Please don't misuse my words and attribute misleading accusations against me.

You're right, my words were a little strong, so I apologize. However, what would a typical reaction be if I did, say, a review of FOF 07 and lead with the words "I hate Jim Gindin, but here's my review of FOF 07". People would tend to disregard the review not because of it's validity, but because there's an inherant bias already admitted.

My point is saying "Matrix has a bad rep" then launching into a argument against how they advertise negatively affects the statement.

I appreciate the "strong and positive contributions" comment, though. :-)

QuikSand

12-26-2006, 10:48 PM

That is NOT way CraigSca is citing. What Craig is showing is that the ad itself says "Out of the Park Baseball."

The link DOES NOT say PureSim -- it says "Out of the Park Baseball" in big bold letters The text is hyperlinked to the Matrix Web site with the page for PureSim. If you click on a link that says "Out of the Park Baseball," I think you should reasonably expect that it will link to Out of the Park Baseball.

I am not entirely certain how big a difference this is, but I think it's woerh interjecting here...

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%" rowSpan=3></TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>Ads by Google (http://services.google.com/feedback/abg?url=http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx%3Fwebtag%3Dtabletopsports%26nav%3Dkeywords&hl=en&client=ca-pub-2093616136278178&adU=www.MatrixGames.com&adT=Out+of+the+Park&adU=cards.somworld.com/&adT=Vintage+Strat-O-Matic&adU=www.BaltimoreChop.com&adT=APBA+Baseball+Game+Items&adU=www.replaybb.com&adT=Replay+Sports+Board+Games&adU=SimDynasty.com&adT=Play+Against+Human+Owners&adU=www.WaggleProShop.com&adT=GOLO+Golf+Dice+Game&adU=www.NAQgames.com&adT=NAQ+is+Big-Time+FUN&adU=www.MrSuperGames-Jump.com&adT=Baseball+board+game&adU=BaseballGuru.com&adT=The+Guru%27s+Baseball+Game&adU=BaseballComputerGames.GizmoCafe.com&adT=Baseball+Computer+Games&adU=www.ourfamilygame.com&adT=Original+Gay+Trivia+Game&adU=www.Shopping.com&adT=Baseball+Game&adU=www.kbones.com&adT=Knucklebones+Magazine&adU=www.BoardGames.com&adT=Board+Games+SuperStore&adU=Overstock.com&adT=Board+Games&adU=ComparisonWarehouse.com&adT=Baseball+Board+Game&adU=ShopWiki.com&adT=Board+game&adU=www.mookiegifts.com&adT=Cocktail-Opoly+Brew-Opoly&adU=BoardGamesCatalog.com&adT=Baseball+Board+Game&adU=www.tc.umn.edu&adT=Football+board+game&done=1) </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Out of the Park (http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/iclk?sa=l&ai=BD1C6gx-RRbP5L5KQ0AKjy73iBKqE1g2sktCMAsCNtwHQ2REQARgBIIrhhgIoFDAAOABQzuv9iQRgyfamjNCk5A-YAaCmpw6gAZLg7P0DqgEVMzQ5NjkzNzEzNCs5ODc4Nzk4NjYwsgEXZm9ydW1zLmRlbHBoaWZvcnVtcy5jb23IAQHaAVJodHRwOi8vZm9ydW1zLmRlbHBoaWZvcnVtcy5jb20vbi9wZngvZm9ydW0uYXNweD93ZWJ0YWc9dGFibGV0b3BzcG9ydHMmbmF2PWtleXdvcmRzqAMB&num=1&adurl=http://www.matrixgames.com/games/game.asp%3Fgid%3D315&client=ca-pub-2093616136278178) There's Nothing Better than PureSim Play Any Team from 1900 to 2005!
www.MatrixGames.com (http://www.MatrixGames.com)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

...but assuming Craig's post above is a faithful reproduction of the original, then what is actually says is "Out of the Park." While the fact that you are apparently reading the word "Baseball" after iot is perhaps evidence that their tactic is working as intended... they didn't actually use the entire name of the competing product. In another setting, someone might lead off an advertisement for something like a baseball training video with a phrase like "Out of the Park!" or "It's a Home Run!" as an apropos exclamation for something excellent.

I still think it's deceptive, and I absolutely think it's deliberate, but they didn't use the actual trademarked name of the competition. FWIW

Toddzilla

12-27-2006, 06:56 AM

FWIW, I'm VERY DISAPPOINTED to see that response...The example above is EXTREMELY deceptive.
...and thinks that the two games are the same, it's THE CUSTOMER'S FAULT
Lighten up, Francis..es

Shaun Sullivan

12-27-2006, 07:48 AM

FWIW, I'm VERY DISAPPOINTED to see that response.

I read your response as condoning that type of advertising practice. If that is the case, I think that is sad and disappointing. It also makes me want to never purchase one of your products and recommond to others not to purchase your products.

You have to do what you think is best. But I wouldn't expect continued support from this community if that's what you think is best.

Yikes. I knew I shouldn't have chimed in :) Believe me, I am not as evil as you seem to think I am. Really, that's a pretty harsh response, and I don't think I deserved it.

I really don't think consumers would be duped into buying PureSim if they were actively seeking out OOTP and happened to see this passive ad on a forum.

Really, why is that any different than a company associating its product with a keyword of "PureSim" when the word "PureSim" has nothing to do with Baseball, or their product, rather, it's simply the name of a competing product? What you are saying is it's ok for a consumer to go actively look for a PureSim download by entering "PureSim" into their search box and then be presented with OOTP as well, but it's not OK for a passive ad that has the words "out of the park" (not "Out of the Park Baseball" BTW) and then clearly mentions "PureSim" and presents a link to Matrix Games?

I really think they are both in the same category, and it's just semantics.

It seems to me that you already had some sort of axe to grind with Matrix, and I am incurring the brunt of your anger. If I came off as flippant, I apologize, I just don't think this is all as serious as you and Craig seem to think it is. This stuff goes on all the time.

At the very least, let's respectfully disagree on this one (I can certainly understand your side of this if I put myself in your shoes). But, please don't hang such a negative label on me, it's not fair -- I had nothing to do with creating that ad in the first place.

Shaun

Eaglesfan27

12-27-2006, 08:48 AM

FWIW, I'm VERY DISAPPOINTED to see that response.

Using search keywords is one thing. I don't think OOTP using PureSim as a key word is wrong nor vice versa. I don't think there is a problem with Coca-Cola and Pepsi doing the same thing -- what you're essentially doing is looking for customers who are interested in a similar product. Is it slimy? Yes, but it's not deceptive.

The example above is EXTREMELY deceptive. If I search "PureSim" on Download.com, I see a link clearly labeled PureSim, and it's a link for PureSim. I see a link labeled Out of the Park Baseball and it's a link for OOTP. Certainly it rides on the PureSim coattails by coming up on the search result, but at no time am I confused as to what I'm clicking on and what I should get.

That is NOT way CraigSca is citing. What Craig is showing is that the ad itself says "Out of the Park Baseball." I would conclude based on that ad that Out of the Park is a MatrixGames product and that following the link will take me to Out of the Park. It does not. This is almost classic bait and switch. The purpose of that ad is to make people think they are getting OOTP and giving them PureSim. That is dishonest at best, immoral at least and illegal at worst.

I wouldn't expect any differently from MatrixGames because they have demonstrated their character repeatedly in the past in terms of sports sims and I think their reputation is cemented. If you choose to affiliate with an operation like that, it's your choice.

I also completely recognize that you have no control over their advertising. What would have been the responsible thing to do is request that Matrix change the ad to read PureSim, not Out of the Park and tell them you won't do business with them in the future if they persist associating your product with deceptive advertising.

I read your response as condoning that type of advertising practice. If that is the case, I think that is sad and disappointing. It also makes me want to never purchase one of your products and recommond to others not to purchase your products.

You have to do what you think is best. But I wouldn't expect continued support from this community if that's what you think is best.

Well said. This just cements my attitude towards Matrix Games and all of their products.

Eaglesfan27

12-27-2006, 08:55 AM

I guess everyone is doing it.

I have never seen Solecismic do this sort of thing. I've never seen Wolverine Studios, or Brian do this when he was independent. I don't remember Grey Dog doing this.

lighthousekeeper

12-27-2006, 09:26 AM

[what makes good business sense] :not equal: [what messageboard dorks like]

JonInMiddleGA

12-27-2006, 09:40 AM

[what makes good business sense] :not equal: [what messageboard dorks like]

That about covers my take too.

kcchief19

12-27-2006, 10:49 AM

...but assuming Craig's post above is a faithful reproduction of the original, then what is actually says is "Out of the Park." While the fact that you are apparently reading the word "Baseball" after iot is perhaps evidence that their tactic is working as intended... they didn't actually use the entire name of the competing product. In another setting, someone might lead off an advertisement for something like a baseball training video with a phrase like "Out of the Park!" or "It's a Home Run!" as an apropos exclamation for something excellent.
I will gladly admit to being stupid and acknowledging that their advertising practice is working as intended, as deceptive as it may be. You are absolutely correct -- the word baseball is missing. I apologize for stating that the word was there.

I still believe it's intentionally deceptive and unethical. Reiterrating what I said before, I don't have a problem with someone using search words to reach consumers who are interested in a similar product. I think it's unethical to trick people to assuming there is a connection between your product and someone else's product.
Yikes. I knew I shouldn't have chimed in :) Believe me, I am not as evil as you seem to think I am. Really, that's a pretty harsh response, and I don't think I deserved it.
...
It seems to me that you already had some sort of axe to grind with Matrix, and I am incurring the brunt of your anger. If I came off as flippant, I apologize, I just don't think this is all as serious as you and Craig seem to think it is. This stuff goes on all the time.

At the very least, let's respectfully disagree on this one (I can certainly understand your side of this if I put myself in your shoes). But, please don't hang such a negative label on me, it's not fair -- I had nothing to do with creating that ad in the first place.

Shaun
Shaun, I don't believe your are evil, and I never said you were. In fact, the reason why this disappointed me so much is that I do respect you and thought you were above this kind of practice.

Unfortunately, the fact that you say "this stuff goes on all the time" as a justification for doing it is very disappointing. Lot of people do things that are unethical, but that doesn't make it right.

You respectfully disagree and that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. I have no "axe to grind" with Matrix. I have never purchased one of their products. However, if you were to do a poll of this forum I think you would find the view of Matrix Games to be extremely low due to their involvement with a game that has a very bad reputation. When I made the comment about Matrix Games, it was because I have a very low opinion of the company based on what I have seen and read in relation to another game.

In short, I'm not directing any anger at Matrix Games toward you. I am completely indifferent toward Matrix Games. I doubt I would ever buy one of their games because of the low regard in which they are held in this community.

Unfortunately, when you associate yourself with a company you share one another's reputations, both good and bad. To some people this means nothing -- if I like Madden, what do I care if EA relaces a buggy basketball game? To others this means everything -- I have no doubt that there are people on this forum that still hold EA in low regard for their handling of FOF. You take the good, you take the bad.

You say you don't have any control over how Matrix advertises your games, but the fact is you do. You can tell Matrix you don't like the ad and ask them to change it. You can use the way they advertise your game as a factor in evaluating your future relationship with them.

Shaun, frankly I think this reflects more on Matrix Games than you. As EF27 said, it cements their reputation with many of us. The involvement of someone with you outstanding reputation with Matrix actually reflected positively on Matrix. It made me think that maybe it wasn't the company, but just one bad developer, on bad product and a handful of cranky administrators on their Web site.

Regardless, my comments were not intended as a ripping or disrespect of you, and if it came across that way I apologize. I also apologize for my viewing error -- my mind read the word "Baseball" in the ad; although I contend that was exactly what the ad intended to happen.

My comments were more of an open letter to you stating how I felt about a company that used what I viewed as unethical advertising and how I felt about that as a consumer. I doubt that I'm the only potential consumer for PureSim games that feels that way, and I thought it was worthwhile to share my thoughts. If my thoughts were viewed as disrespectful, I'll be glad to correspond with you in a less public way. I just don't think you want to be surprised if some customers view you differently because you seem to be condoning what some of view as an unethical advertising approach.

Franklinnoble

12-27-2006, 11:02 AM

[what makes good business sense] :not equal: [what messageboard dorks like]

That about covers my take too.

Bingo. Google ads do this kind of thing all the time. You can search on a certain product, and get ads suggesting a competitor. Heck, it even happens in gMail... I'll get a message mentioning an Intel chipset, and see an ad at the top of the window for an nVidia motherboard.

It's just a smart way for a smaller company to let folks interested in their particular market that they offer a competing product that might be worth taking a look at.

QuikSand

12-27-2006, 11:22 AM

But, please don't hang such a negative label on me, it's not fair -- I had nothing to do with creating that ad in the first place.

I don't really have terribly strong opinions about this particular promotion tactic, and I'm inclined to agree with those saying that this is probably good business, regardless of some people getting a negative impression. But I don't think you (or anyone similarly situated) can have it both ways. If you choose to work with them to promote your product, then you are appropriately accountable for their efforts. If you really disapprove of how they do what they do, then you sever the relationship.

The company you keep says plenty about you, like it or not.

CraigSca

12-27-2006, 11:45 AM

FWIW: People asked if this was an accurate representation of the real advertisement. Between messages there were three advertisements and that was the first one, and it was a direct copy/paste.

FWIW2: I have both products - PureSim and OOTP. I haven't seen OOTP do it, but I wouldn't bet my life savings that this isn't occuring in both directions. Still, this was the first time I had seen it in a forum I read quite often. Personally, I think this is ethically a bad move.

We can talk business all day - a good BUSINESS tactic would be to plant some salmonella in your competitior's restaurant, but that doesn't make it ethical.

Shaun Sullivan

12-27-2006, 01:14 PM

I don't really have terribly strong opinions about this particular promotion tactic, and I'm inclined to agree with those saying that this is probably good business, regardless of some people getting a negative impression. But I don't think you (or anyone similarly situated) can have it both ways. If you choose to work with them to promote your product, then you are appropriately accountable for their efforts. If you really disapprove of how they do what they do, then you sever the relationship.

The company you keep says plenty about you, like it or not.

Ask anyone in this industry that has EVER dealt with me (Gary, Arlie, Jim, Clay, Markus, or any customer for that matter) whether I am an ethical, professional member of the community. I'm pretty sure what their answer would be.

If you or any of the others on this board choose to judge me based on anything besides my own actions, then so be it. Walk a mile in my shoes guys.

The irony is, a disturbing number of the posters here like flame wars and publicly humiliating people a lot more than discussing the genre anyway. Just have a look at the content of the longest most "popular" threads --they usually involve publicly mocking or skewering somebody mercilessly.

Of course many of these same folks feel they are also equipped to give me lessons on what is ethical, and tell me how "sad" I am. Some of you should consider having a look in the mirror.

I'm tired of the crap I get here, so I should probably consider moving on.

rkmsuf

12-27-2006, 01:15 PM

QuikSand

12-27-2006, 01:21 PM

Ask anyone in this industry that has EVER dealt with me (Gary, Arlie, Jim, Clay, Markus, or any customer for that matter) whether I am an ethical, professional member of the community. I'm pretty sure what their answer would be.

If you or any of the others on this board choose to judge me based on anything besides my own actions, then so be it. Walk a mile in my shoes guys.

The irony is, a disturbing number of the posters here like flame wars and publicly humiliating people a lot more than discussing the genre anyway. Just have a look at the content of the longest most "popular" threads --they usually involve publicly mocking or skewering somebody mercilessly.

Of course many of these same folks feel they are also equipped to give me lessons on what is ethical, and tell me how "sad" I am. Some of you should consider having a look in the mirror.

I'm tired of the crap I get here, so I should probably consider moving on.

Sorry that my post so obviously got to you. I deliberately tried to make it clear that I really don't even see this particular marketing thing as a big deal.

Regardless, if your view of this is basically "hey, my marketers did it, it has nothing to do with me," then I'll still believe that you are missing a broader point. If you can't separate that pretty specific observation (or criticism, if you prefer) from "crap" and "skewering" then I guess I'll go back to your earlier suggestion, and simply agree to disagree, just on somewhat different matters.

JonInMiddleGA

12-27-2006, 01:46 PM

Bearing in mind that I don't really see these particular ads as anything other than the business of doing business, the fact that you just took aim & shot yourself in the foot with this post prolly ain't a good sign.

If you or any of the others on this board choose to judge me based on anything besides my own actions, then so be it. Walk a mile in my shoes guys.

Everybody, designer to pro athlete to kindergarten teacher, is subject to being known by the company they keep. Deal with it, you don't get a free pass just because you're a game designer.

The irony is, a disturbing number of the posters here like flame wars and publicly humiliating people a lot more than discussing the genre anyway. Just have a look at the content of the longest most "popular" threads --they usually involve publicly mocking or skewering somebody mercilessly.

Damn, if I didn't think it was so absurd, I'd almost believe you were somehow taking up for the debacle that was Maxmium Foobtall. But there's no logical reason that you would do that, I mean, it's not like you have some connec ... oh ... wait a minute.

Putting yourself in the position of defending dogs like Matrix probably isn't the best move you could make. The support and sales that you've gotten from here are in spite of them, not because of them. Defend them at your own risk.

I'm tired of the crap I get here, so I should probably consider moving on.

??? If you think you've gotten any significant amount of undue crap here over time, then you probably should. And you probably ought to do it with great haste, because you're damned sure too sensitive to deal with reality.

If you think you've "gotten crap" here, then buddy boy I would strongly recommend that you take some time & get a firmer grip on reality and your place in it. You ain't gonna get your ass kissed here just because you're a friggin designer. Here's a newsflash for you: these games that we all play? They ain't the cure for cancer. Nor even bad breath. They're diversions. And in the grand scheme of life, that's all they are. And making them does not get you some free pass on honesty. Nor on being fair game for discussion.

"the crap you get here"? Good God Almighty, even though I don't see a real problem with the ads that started this thread, I can at least understand why some would at least mark them as questionable. And if you think that's more crap than you deserve, then by all means, hit the fucking road.

Once again, I'm reminded of why I wish most developers would just stay the fuck off the internet. I'm not sure whether you just came across as a whiny little bitch or an unjustifiably arrogant prick, or maybe parts of both but either way, thanks a whole friggin lot for making me regret ever buying your damned game. And right now, I'd really like to attach it to the end of my foot & shove it up your ass.

rkmsuf

12-27-2006, 01:47 PM

lol, that was great

heybrad

12-27-2006, 01:51 PM

Wow... talk about an over reaction to an over reaction to an over reaction!

JonInMiddleGA

12-27-2006, 01:56 PM

Wow... talk about an over reaction to an over reaction to an over reaction!

Sorry Brad, but my annual quota of patience for whiny bitches has been used up. My warehouse is also completely out of tolerance for game designers who act like they're God's gift to the world and should be treated with kid gloves since they're so special.

I'm not expecting a resupply of either commodity until sometime after the first of the year, and even then, supplies are expected to be limited & delays in shipping should be anticipated.

Franklinnoble

12-27-2006, 02:22 PM

My warehouse is also completely out of tolerance for game designers who act like they're God's gift to the world and should be treated with kid gloves since they're so special.

While I agree that most game developers have a prima donna attitude in this regard, I don't think Shaun is one of them. I think he's just a little pissed at the notion of being called a sneaky bastard when that's clearly not what he is.

Vote with your wallets, fellas. In my experience, PureSim was a better buy for the money this year than OOTP. As for the google ads, well, why don't you all go rage against the Malt-O-Meal cereal aisle the next time you're at Safeway:

http://www.foodprocessing-technology.com/projects/malt_o_meal/images/MALT-O-MEAL-5.jpg

You guys act like nobody's ever used imitation in marketing before.

JonInMiddleGA

12-27-2006, 02:26 PM

While I agree that most game developers have a prima donna attitude in this regard, I don't think Shaun is one of them.

His last post in this thread strongly suggests otherwise.

Somewhat surprising, and at least mildly disappointing ... but it was what it was.

And, insane though it may have been, it read pretty clearly as a much larger gripe than about just this incident, which revealed a lot more about his attitude than I suspect he intended. But he'll play hell putting that genie back in the bottle.

Shaun Sullivan

12-27-2006, 02:31 PM

I'm not sure whether you just came across as a whiny little bitch or an unjustifiably arrogant prick, or maybe parts of both but either way, thanks a whole friggin lot for making me regret ever buying your damned game. And right now, I'd really like to attach it to the end of my foot & shove it up your ass.

Did you get the boxed copy or just the download? I'm trying to figure out how much lubrication I should use :)

Toddzilla

12-27-2006, 02:33 PM

Wow - a lot of panties sure got bunched in this thread. Good thing I go commando....

SirFozzie

12-27-2006, 02:39 PM

Woah.. thread goes humming along nicely, accelerates to about 110.. and then Shaun with the comment that throws the whole thread into a bootleger's reverse.

*laughs*

Personally, I'm not enamored of the Delphi ad, but it is a part of advertising, sadly.

DaddyTorgo

12-27-2006, 02:45 PM

Did you get the boxed copy or just the download? I'm trying to figure out how much lubrication I should use :)

well said Shaun.

WVUFAN

12-27-2006, 02:47 PM

Sorry Brad, but my annual quota of patience for whiny bitches has been used up. My warehouse is also completely out of tolerance for game designers who act like they're God's gift to the world and should be treated with kid gloves since they're so special.

I'm not expecting a resupply of either commodity until sometime after the first of the year, and even then, supplies are expected to be limited & delays in shipping should be anticipated.

Normally I agree with you on alot of things, but I don't think Shaun has acted like a Prima-Donna in this or any of his prior posts. He's simply reacting to what he saw as a slight on him personally, which is much the same reaction that many of us would have.

I do agree with him in the fact that developers get treated VERY poorly on this board in general, and that's shouldn't be the kind of impression we as a community should be giving.

Antmeister

12-27-2006, 02:48 PM

While I agree that most game developers have a prima donna attitude in this regard, I don't think Shaun is one of them. I think he's just a little pissed at the notion of being called a sneaky bastard when that's clearly not what he is...

The problem is that no one called him a sneaky bastard. Heck, no one even inferred that he was sneaky bastard. The way I read some people believe that Matrix Games is using an unethical tactic and because is associated with them, they believe he should say something about it. Why did this blow up into this?

It seems to me that people were more concerned about Shaun's association with Matrix because they believe it could hurt him in the future. I didn't see this as attack on Shaun whatsoever since he had nothing to do with the ad.

All kcchief19 said was that he was disappointed by the response because he had hoped that Shaun would say something about it. He didn't say that Shaun is a rat bastard because he placed the ad.

And all QuikSand was saying is that the actions of the publisher can be intervened with since it is Shaun's product. Again, he didn't call him a rat bastard either.

Overall, the ad doesn't bother me all too much since you don't find the ad when googling for "Out of the Park" or "Out of the Park Baseball" which is usually how most people search for these things anyway. I do find it somewhat deceptive however since the actual hyperlink doesn't reflect the actual name of the product. But then again this is just an opinion. I just hope no one cries bloody murder if you see something like:

Pure Sim: Pure baseball simulation excitement with Out of the Park Baseball.

Antmeister

12-27-2006, 02:50 PM

Did you get the boxed copy or just the download? I'm trying to figure out how much lubrication I should use :)

Ok I love this quote. I wish we had quote of the moment. This is ridiculous. :D

JonInMiddleGA

12-27-2006, 02:51 PM

I do agree with him in the fact that developers get treated VERY poorly on this board in general ...

Well, at least we've identified the source of our general disagreement.

I feel like the opposite is much closer to the truth, that many more are given the benefit of too many doubts instead of being roughed up unfairly.

DaddyTorgo

12-27-2006, 02:53 PM

JonInMiddleGA

12-27-2006, 02:56 PM

did you mean to say "roughed up fairly" ?

Nope. Read it again, I think it reads like I meant to say it.

Overall, I find the notion that developers are somehow given a hard time here unfairly to be utterly mindboggling, when if anything I'd say they get off lightly on the whole.

Draft Dodger

12-27-2006, 03:02 PM

I feel like the opposite is much closer to the truth, that many more are given the benefit of too many doubts instead of being roughed up unfairly.

nice to see that there's still one guy out there willing to fix this horrible injustice.

WVUFAN

12-27-2006, 03:04 PM

Well, at least we've identified the source of our general disagreement.

I feel like the opposite is much closer to the truth, that many more are given the benefit of too many doubts instead of being roughed up unfairly.

I remember the times people in this forum bashed Gary Gorski for posting his opinion on political topics, saying developers shouldn't be doing that. Or the vicious beating David Winters got for Maximum Football (and ANY developer who tries to make a game should be saluted for the attempt, successful or not. No one deserved the kind of bashing Winters got, regardless of the product they put out). I feel they're put to a sorta double standard in many cases in this forum.

I think most of us want developers to post here, so we should show them a little respect when they do.

DaddyTorgo

12-27-2006, 03:09 PM

The times I remember if people in this forum bashing Gary Gorski for posting his opinion on political topics, saying developers shouldn't be doing that. Or the vicious beating David Winters got for Maximum Football (and ANY developer who tries to make a game should be saluted for the attempt, successful or not. No one deserved the kind of bashing Winters got, regardless of the product they put out). I feel they're put to a sorta double standard in many cases in this forum.

I think most of us want developers to post here, so we should show them a little respect when they do.

i think that's true, but i think there is a thin line between "respect" and "giving a free pass" and "kissing-ass".

i think we should certainly want developers to post here, and keep us informed, and use this community to draw beta-testers and suggestions/etc. from. and that means respecting them. i don't think we need to resort to attacking them, but i don't feel we should be obsequious in our praise.

then again i suspect that there is likely to be a divide on this, with some people (who may not use this board as much for gaming-related things) saying "who gives a rat's ass if developers post here or not," while others who still value this community for the gaming knowledge saying "we want developers to feel welcome."

so it's really a question of what kind of a community we want to be.

Toddzilla

12-27-2006, 03:11 PM

Pure Sim: Pure baseball simulation excitement with Out of the Park Baseball.Well, that's not exactly fair. Sure, they're both registered trademarks for specific computer baseball games, but one is a common phrase used in baseball, and one is clearly a product name. This may be splitting hairs, but IMO, your example is 100x more egregious than the existing PureSim ad.

BrianD

12-27-2006, 03:12 PM

I don't think anyone has said that developers shouldn't post here. We've just had a few people say that they will let personal feeling about the developers shape their buying decisions.

SirFozzie

12-27-2006, 03:15 PM

Antmeister

12-27-2006, 03:22 PM

Well, that's not exactly fair. Sure, they're both registered trademarks for specific computer baseball games, but one is a common phrase used in baseball, and one is clearly a product name. This may be splitting hairs, but IMO, your examhttp://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/editor/color.gifple is 100x more egregious than the existing PureSim ad.

Hey now Mr. Zilla, I just said Pure Sim, not PureSim. Plus I didn't use Baseball. Any text simulation can be called a pure sim. Couldn't it? I know I am just playing with words, but that is exactly the explanation I see for the example above. In other words, if someone had the same intent, the area wouldn't be so gray to most people.

WVUFAN

12-27-2006, 03:22 PM

I don't think anyone has said that developers shouldn't post here. We've just had a few people say that they will let personal feeling about the developers shape their buying decisions.

And that's the double standard I'm talking about.

Put yourself in the shoes of the developer here ... say you made a game, and you want to not only talk about your game on this forum, but actually try and be a part of the community, just like everyone else.

You decide, much like a good majority of people on this forum, to post in a non-sports sim thread, and the response you get is "I don't like your opinion, so I'm not gonna buy your product". You're then basically given a choice ... be ONLY a developer in the forum, or be a member of the community but not a developer, because people won't let you be both.

What would you do?

JonInMiddleGA

12-27-2006, 03:24 PM

I remember the times people in this forum bashed Gary Gorski for posting his opinion on political topics, saying developers shouldn't be doing that. Or the vicious beating David Winters got for Maximum Football (and ANY developer who tries to make a game should be saluted for the attempt, successful or not. No one deserved the kind of bashing Winters got, regardless of the product they put out). I feel they're put to a sorta double standard in many cases in this forum.

Boy, when we disagree ...

Anybody is free to post whatever (subject to the rules, etc. etc.) ... but they do so at their own peril. You think there aren't people here who would choose not to do business with me because of personal differences? C'mon, get real.
That's a risk I'm willing to take because the odds of our business crossing paths with FOFC is a lot lower than the odds a developer has of the same situation. Developer X, Y, and Z are all free to shout whatever opinion they have from the rooftops just like the rest of us ... but it's damned stupid of them to do so here IMO, and I simply wish to hell they wouldn't since it can affect my enjoyment of product X1, Y1, and/or Z1.

And Daivd Wniters? He deserved a helluva lot more than what he got here, but short of breaking any number of laws, it'd be pretty much impossible to give him what he deserved.

so we should show them a little respect when they do.

But surely no more than anyone else. And saying stupid stuff worthy of drawing fire certainly doesn't seem to have too many immunity categories here.

BrianD

12-27-2006, 03:27 PM

And that's the double standard I'm talking about.

Put yourself in the shoes of the developer here ... say you made a game, and you want to not only talk about your game on this forum, but actually try and be a part of the community, just like everyone else.

You decide, much like a good majority of people on this forum, to post in a non-sports sim thread, and the response you get is "I don't like your opinion, so I'm not gonna buy your product". You're then basically given a choice ... be ONLY a developer in the forum, or be a member of the community but not a developer, because people won't let you be both.

What would you do?

For me it would depend on how much of my potential customer base disagrees with my opinions.

This is the kind of situation that every business person goes through when they go out in public. How many people decided they weren't going to support Tom Cruise after he showed how crazy he was? Why do you not normally see your local business leader getting totally drunk at a bar near his/her office? You can't completely separate the public image from the personal image. People deal with that in every other public setting, I don't see why it wouldn't be the case here.

WVUFAN

12-27-2006, 03:33 PM

Boy, when we disagree ...

Heh. :) It's cool, though. I do understand your point of view, just don't agree with it.

Anybody is free to post whatever (subject to the rules, etc. etc.) ... but they do so at their own peril. You think there aren't people here who would choose not to do business with me because of personal differences? C'mon, get real.
That's a risk I'm willing to take because the odds of our business crossing paths with FOFC is a lot lower than the odds a developer has of the same situation. Developer X, Y, and Z are all free to shout whatever opinion they have from the rooftops just like the rest of us ... but it's damned stupid of them to do so here IMO, and I simply wish to hell they wouldn't since it can affect my enjoyment of product X1, Y1, and/or Z1.

Ahhh, I think here's the big difference. I don't let my opinion of a creator (whether it be a game, book ect) affect my enjoyment of the product. I'll give you an example: I'm a comic geek. One of my favorite artists is a guy named John Byrne. I HATE the man. Hate. I'll buy his comics, because I like his art. Him as a person and his work are two completely separate entities for me. So I would have no problem arguing with Gary Gorski on political threads because it doesn't prevent me from enjoying his games.

All I'm saying is that if we want developers to be a part of the community, be treated like everyone else, we can't be shoving the fact that they're developers in their face everytime we don't agree with them. We're just pushing them away.

BrianD

12-27-2006, 03:42 PM

Ahhh, I think here's the big difference. I don't let my opinion of a creator (whether it be a game, book ect) affect my enjoyment of the product. I'll give you an example: I'm a comic geek. One of my favorite artists is a guy named John Byrne. I HATE the man. Hate. I'll buy his comics, because I like his art. Him as a person and his work are two completely separate entities for me. So I would have no problem arguing with Gary Gorski on political threads because it doesn't prevent me from enjoying his games.

All I'm saying is that if we want developers to be a part of the community, be treated like everyone else, we can't be shoving the fact that they're developers in their face everytime we don't agree with them. We're just pushing them away.

Different people have different tolerance levels. You seem to have a near-infinite tolerance level, mine is slightly lower, JimGA's seems to be quite a bit lower. This is really no different than figuring out what kind of customer service would turn you off from shopping at a company. Some people have one bad experience with one bad customer service rep and never go back to the store. Others don't let bad service bother them and keep going back.

Your public image is always going to have varying levels of effect on different people. Professionals have to weigh those risks and act as they choose, but be aware of the consequences.

It would probably also be good for them to remember that people with a bad experience are much louder than people with a good experience. Just because a few people complain that an unpopular opinion will prevent future sales doesn't mean that the lost sales will amount to much at all.

VPI97

12-27-2006, 03:49 PM

If I ever released a game that was targetted towards the type of people on FOFC, I wouldn't associate it with my current username. My personal opinions on random shit shouldn't reflect on whatever product I put out, but when you use the same username for business and pleasure, that's bound to be what happens.

lighthousekeeper

12-27-2006, 04:20 PM

at least it's better advertising than this:

http://www.atomicpark.com/xq/aspx/puresim-baseball-2007/wt.mc_id.55/prodid.62600/buy.games/qx/productdetail.html

edit....

or this:
http://madhatterrgames.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=23848

kcchief19

12-27-2006, 05:07 PM

This thread makes strange bedfellows ... Jon would consider me an egghead liberal communist and I would consider him a right wing redneck son of a bitch if we ever met in public. But we're in absolute lockstep on this one. Anybody is free to post whatever (subject to the rules, etc. etc.) ... but they do so at their own peril. You think there aren't people here who would choose not to do business with me because of personal differences? C'mon, get real.
That's a risk I'm willing to take because the odds of our business crossing paths with FOFC is a lot lower than the odds a developer has of the same situation. Developer X, Y, and Z are all free to shout whatever opinion they have from the rooftops just like the rest of us ... but it's damned stupid of them to do so here IMO, and I simply wish to hell they wouldn't since it can affect my enjoyment of product X1, Y1, and/or Z1.
Right or wrong, consumers can use anything they want to determine whether or not to buy your product. If you want to go on a message board and say what you think, more power to you. But a consequence is that while some people may agree with you, others may disagree and hold it against you. There are things I'd like to do as part of my private life that I can't do because it's not smart business. I'd like to write the local paper and tell them to take their editorial board and shove it sideways, but if I did I'd likely be fired from my job. If a game designer wanted to go over to any other message forum in the world espouse any belief they want to, they could do so with almost total impunity. But this message board is in most respects a place of business for most game developers. It doesn't make sense to treat it otherwise, and it certainly cannot be both.

When I read the ad, my distaste was fully with Matrix Games -- this behavior reinforced my earlier perception that they were a bunch of total douchebags, which is higher regard than I think most people hold them in around here. When I saw Shaun's apparent defense of the tactic, I called in for what I thought it was. My response would have been completely different had Shaun said nothing at all. And I certainly wasn't calling him out as a game developer -- to me it doesn't matter what his business is. And if I see another developer using a similar tact, I'd be just as offended by them.

And Daivd Wniters? He deserved a helluva lot more than what he got here, but short of breaking any number of laws, it'd be pretty much impossible to give him what he deserved.
I'll qualify this by saying that since I didn't buy the game and therefore don't have first hand knowledge. But if what I've seen and heard is even half true, he deserved everything he got. Allowing people to buy that product was reprehensible.

But then again, I think it's unfair to lump Shaun in a conversation with Winters. My impression is that Shaun's product is a million light years beyond anything Daivd could dream of.

JonInMiddleGA

12-27-2006, 07:05 PM

This thread makes strange bedfellows ... Jon would consider me an egghead liberal communist and I would consider him a right wing redneck son of a bitch if we ever met in public. But we're in absolute lockstep on this one.

Glad we cleared that up ;)
(Yes folks, that's humor. I couldn't have put it any better than kcchief did if I tried for a week)

But here's what makes it even more bizarre: I went into the thread:
1) Disliking Matrix (for their attempts to defend Maxmium)
2) Having nothing in the world, nada, zip against Shaun (other than the fact he had associated himself with Matrix)

And yet
3) I still found nothing particularly egregious about the ads in question.

And yet I still managed to come away from the thread with
4) my opinion of Shaun blown to hell
&
5) the chances of me being a future customer being changed to pretty much nil.

If that doesn't illustrate the business hazards of giving developers keyboards & internet connections then I don't know what will.

Brillig

12-27-2006, 07:36 PM

Glad we cleared that up ;)
(Yes folks, that's humor. I couldn't have put it any better than kcchief did if I tried for a week)

FWIW, that's stolen from Aaron Sorkin/The West Wing. Although Sorkin might have stolen it himself.

sabotai

12-27-2006, 07:51 PM

FWIW, that's stolen from Aaron Sorkin/The West Wing. Although Sorkin might have stolen it himself.

He probably copied it from that guy who wrote Sports Night.

JonInMiddleGA

12-27-2006, 07:53 PM

He probably copied it from that guy who wrote Sports Night.

More likely that the egghead liberal communist stole it from a god-fearing GOP'er ;)

gstelmack

12-27-2006, 08:10 PM

Look, if there's anything I've learned over the last decade, it's this:

Well, never mind, I was taught if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all, and I can't think of a single nice thing to say about people in charge of marketing products.

kcchief19

12-27-2006, 08:48 PM

FWIW, that's stolen from Aaron Sorkin/The West Wing. Although Sorkin might have stolen it himself.
I slightly modified the line, mostly because I didn't want to look up how to correctly spell lilly-livered and I didn't feel like including the phrase "gun toting." Regardless, I nearly included an attribution anyway. :)

As Sorkin once wrote (and I believe stole from someone else): Good writers borrow. Great writers outright steal.

sabotai

12-27-2006, 11:17 PM

As Sorkin once wrote (and I believe stole from someone else): Good writers borrow. Great writers outright steal.

Yeah, he stole that from Picasso. "Good artists copy, great artists steal."

EDIT: Leonardo da Vinci is also credited for that quote, so who knows where it comes from, but it definitely came before Sorkins' time.

Crim

12-27-2006, 11:40 PM

Umm.

...

Hey Brad.

/gettin the hell back outta this thread

Ben E Lou

12-28-2006, 06:13 AM

My personal opinions on random shit shouldn't reflect on whatever product I put out, but when you use the same username for business and pleasure, that's bound to be what happens.From my years here, I'd tend to agree with your assessment, although I still can't for the life of me understand how so-called men could respond that way. Frankly, I see it as a decidedly weak-willed, emotional, illogical, and just generally woman-esque response to have to base a decision on buying or not buying a product based on anything other than how good the product itself is. To paraphrase what a wise man once said, Shaun Sullivan* could come over to my house, take a dump in my microwave, and turn it on, and it wouldn't impact my enjoyment of PureSim* one iota.

(*--or Jim Gindin/FOF, or Arlie Rahn/BBCF, or Markus Heinsohn/OOTP, or Brian Nichols/FBCB, or Gary Gorski/TPB, etc., etc., etc.)

Markus Heinsohn

12-28-2006, 06:31 AM

I just checked our product profile on downloads.com, and the word Puresim is not included, so I guess it pulls out similar products in that search.

Anyway, I find it pretty lame from Matrix to use our name in an ad for their product. I do not blame Shaun, I am 100% sure he had no idea Matrix is doing that. But if I was him I'd ask my publsiher to stop such things in the future.

But well, we had our competition try much worse things to harm us ;) That's life.

JonInMiddleGA

12-28-2006, 08:41 AM

From my years here, I'd tend to agree with your assessment, although I still can't for the life of me understand how so-called men could respond that way. Frankly, I see it as a decidedly weak-willed, emotional, illogical, and just generally woman-esque response to have to base a decision on buying or not buying a product based on anything other than how good the product itself is.

So you wouldn't mind eating at a good restaurant that happened to be owned by a known pedophile? I mean, the food's good, so what's the difference, right?

If that's the case, then at least you're consistent.
If it isn't, then the only difference in our outlook on this is by degrees.

Draft Dodger

12-28-2006, 09:52 AM

So you wouldn't mind eating at a good restaurant that happened to be owned by a known pedophile? I mean, the food's good, so what's the difference, right?

If that's the case, then at least you're consistent.
If it isn't, then the only difference in our outlook on this is by degrees.

we all are visiting a message board occupied by a ginormous asshole - does that make us all gay?

Toddzilla

12-28-2006, 09:57 AM

So you wouldn't mind eating at a good restaurant that happened to be owned by a known pedophile? I mean, the food's good, so what's the difference, right?

If that's the case, then at least you're consistent.
If it isn't, then the only difference in our outlook on this is by degrees.So in the fantasyland occupied by JIMGA:

(Selling software) is to (Owning a restaurant)
as
(Suspect advertising) is to (Pedophilia)

:eek: :eek: :eek:

BrianD

12-28-2006, 10:03 AM

So in the fantasyland occupied by JIMGA:

(Selling software) is to (Owning a restaurant)
as
(Suspect advertising) is to (Pedophilia)

:eek: :eek: :eek:

That was a fairly impressive amount of missing the point.

Ben E Lou

12-28-2006, 10:23 AM

So you wouldn't mind eating at a good restaurant that happened to be owned by a known pedophile? I mean, the food's good, so what's the difference, right?

If that's the case, then at least you're consistent.
If it isn't, then the only difference in our outlook on this is by degrees.I did frequent a restaurant in Columbus that was strongly suspected to be owned by drug dealers (and it turned out it was), so in principle, yeah. However, I'd be a bit weirded out by a known pedophile, for concern about what might end up in the food.

JonInMiddleGA

12-28-2006, 10:33 AM

I did frequent a restaurant in Columbus that was strongly suspected to be owned by drug dealers (and it turned out it was), so in principle, yeah.

Well, at least you're consistent, I'll give you that.

JonInMiddleGA

12-28-2006, 10:34 AM

That was a fairly impressive amount of missing the point.

Oh good, I thought I might be the only person who noticed that.

JonInMiddleGA

12-28-2006, 10:37 AM

So in the fantasyland occupied by JIMGA:

(Selling software) is to (Owning a restaurant)
as
(Suspect advertising) is to (Pedophilia)

:eek: :eek: :eek:

That whooshing sound you heard was, as has already been pointed out, the point I was making going right over your head. Lemme try, just for the hell of it, a slightly different version of the same analogy.

Ever hear the one about the guy asking the girl if she'd sleep with him for $10 bucks? She says no, of course not.

So he asks if she would sleep with him for $10 million. She laughs and says sure, she'd do just about anything for $10 million.

He says so now that we've established that you're a whore, all that's left to do is haggle over the price.

Toddzilla

12-28-2006, 10:40 AM

Oh good, I thought I might be the only person who noticed that.In all honesty, I didn't read SkyDog's original post, particularly the part you were making a point about.
"base a decision on buying or not buying a product based on anything other than how good the product itself is."
I stand <strike>pwned</strike> corrected.

JonInMiddleGA

12-28-2006, 10:45 AM

In all honesty, I didn't read SkyDog's original post, particularly the part you were making a point about.

I stand <strike>pwned</strike> corrected.

Whew. I thought that one was pretty hard to miss otherwise. Although to be honest, I did wrestle for a bit over what example to use.

It gets tougher & tougher to come up with an example that would be consistently recognized as a stand-in for "something heinous". I've been considering using "trout rapist" as a generic form of "insert-something-you- consider-horrible-beyond-words-here"

Shaun Sullivan

12-28-2006, 10:56 AM

QuikSand

12-28-2006, 11:12 AM

Quicksand,

I apologize for losing my cool yesterday. That "The company you keep says plenty about you" just sort of hit me the wrong way. I have spent years trying to build a solid reputation and I'd hate to see some "character definition by association" ruin that reputation.

Upon re-reading your post it's obvious you meant nothing personal. I obviously overreacted.

Shawn,

Understood and accepted. I, too, would hate to see your deservedly good reputation soiled by your decision to affiliate with others who might not share your standards. And I, like others here, really hope that this particular situation isn't reflective of that actually happening.

Oilers9911

12-28-2006, 11:31 AM

At last some saner heads prevail. This is a helluva lot to do about nothing. Shaun overreacted and has admitted to it but I think Jon saying his opinion towards Shaun is "blown to hell" because of a couple posts on a message forum is an overreaction also. At least wait until things cool down and people explain themselves and why they said what they said before condemning someone.

Dutch

12-28-2006, 11:51 AM

Matrix Games has made some questionable moves over the years that a lot of gamers have consistantly recognized.

1.) Shuttling the Steel Panthers crowd over to Matrix Games to enjoy the release of the new Steel Panthers called Combat Leader, which was always just a mirage of "concept art". Finally cancelled after 6 years of stringing a large fan base on....until the very last of the dreadfully loyal finally stopped paying attention.

2.) Telling everybody that "many" Matrix Games employees were playing the hell out of "Fortress Europe" and "loving it" and when it was released was a complete maximum (football) waste of time.

3.) Maximum Football

4.) People really don't trust that Matrix Games is really good for anything more than a middle-man that raises prices so that they get paid, at the expense of the customer.

Now, SS has never (so far as I know) been lumped in with anything derogatory, but he will inevitably suffer from guilt by association. To be fair, I think most of us here at FOFC don't associate SS with those practices of Matrix Games.

Erik Rutins

12-28-2006, 02:05 PM

I thought I should post a few thoughts here in response to the comments I've seen directed at Shaun and at us. I haven't been around here in months, so I don't know what discussions have happened here since M-F was released, but it seems like about half the folks posting in this thread have a very low opinion of us. Here are a few thoughts to add to the mix:

1. We're not a huge company. Our marketing guy thought that using "Out of the Park" as a phrase in those Google ads which you saw would make sense. We don't carefully review each line of text in each Google ad he writes, so as to allow him some independent thought, so it went out. I also see this as a minor issue given what is typical in advertising these days. However, I agree it was in a grey area and we've decided to remove that text. Apologies to anyone we inadvertently offended.

2. When we realized that the initial release of Maximum-Football had gone out with more bugs than we expected, we offered a full refund to all customers who had already purchased it, before post-release reviews and discussions were available. We publicized this and a few took advantage of the offer. I don't think we ever got much credit for that, or for the ongoing work that has continued to improve M-F. If we had it to do over again, we would have kept M-F in development for longer, but we are supporting our M-F customers with a lot of additional development time and free feature updates as well as bug fixes. Most M-F owners seem to think that the latest releases are a pretty huge improvement.

3. Fortress Europe was six years ago, one of our very first releases. It was a mistake primarily because the developer pulled out the rug from under us as far as any post-release support once it was sent out there. Because we were a very small, very young company at the time, we didn't test it as thoroughly as we should have. We've had around forty releases since that were not mentioned and I think any fair assessment of us as a publisher would take those other releases into account.

4. Combat Leader consumed a lot of our early resources. It got a lot of development time, art time, design time and testing time - it was definitely a labor of love and a huge project. We announced it in good faith, but earlier than we should have in the development cycle (another mistake from when we were rookies). We only pulled the plug on it when we realize it absolutely could not be finished in the form it had evolved to. This was a very painful decision for us, but while it disappointed a lot of folks that were looking forward to it, as an unreleased title we are the only ones who were materially harmed by that decision.

I hope this will help put a few things in perspective.

Regards,

- Erik

rkmsuf

12-28-2006, 02:11 PM

I'm no developer but seems to me it might have been a better idea to let this thread fade away.

Obviously the creators of maximum football know better.

st.cronin

12-28-2006, 02:15 PM

If we had it to do over again, we would have kept M-F in development forever.

ah

Antmeister

12-28-2006, 02:23 PM

... 1. We're not a huge company. Our marketing guy thought that using "Out of the Park" as a phrase in those Google ads which you saw would make sense. We don't carefully review each line of text in each Google ad he writes, so as to allow him some independent thought, so it went out. I also see this as a minor issue given what is typical in advertising these days. However, I agree it was in a grey area and we've decided to remove that text. Apologies to anyone we inadvertently offended.

Okay that is commendable to take this action, but I must ask if the marketing guy has to go through any kind of approval or is he just a marketing renegade? Either way, kudos for fixing that.

2. When we realized that the initial release of Maximum-Football had gone out with more bugs than we expected, we offered a full refund to all customers who had already purchased it, before post-release reviews and discussions were available. We publicized this and a few took advantage of the offer. I don't think we ever got much credit for that, or for the ongoing work that has continued to improve M-F. If we had it to do over again, we would have kept M-F in development for longer, but we are supporting our M-F customers with a lot of additional development time and free feature updates as well as bug fixes. Most M-F owners seem to think that the latest releases are a pretty huge improvement.

Ummmm, this is somewhat of a half truth. If you remember correctly, the only reason a refund was available was because of an error in your refund policy. For some people, it was saying a 14 day return policy was available while it was saying all sales are final for everyone else. You contended that there was never a refund available until this error was pointed out. Therefore that is when it was decided to offer a refund since there may have been some people who viewed this. This had nothing to do with believing it was buggy software.

And there was many more things that made people wary:

1. Logos that were not licensed were intially being used in the game and for some reason people didn't know that they were real college and pro logos.

2. Although you said that you had direct involvement with beta testing, somehow a lot of the most obvious bugs got past you.

3. There was/is verbage on the description of the game that says there are rules for American Pro and college, yet the rules in the game didn't reflect the NFL or the NCAA at its initial release.

4. The whole refund thing was already explained.

5. There was a staff member on another message board who called people thieves if they purchased any of their games from the bargain bin at a local computer store.

etc...

#3 and #4, I can't comment on since I didn't follow either. I just wanted to give you my reasons for being wary of Matrix.

Erik Rutins

12-28-2006, 02:40 PM

Okay that is commendable to take this action, but I must ask if the marketing guy has to go through any kind of approval or is he just a marketing renegade? Either way, kudos for fixing that.

Well, he's not with us any longer for other reasons, but he's a smart guy who was in the loop in our discussions and allowed to exercise his own judgement as far as google ad text. When it came to a more significant ad, such as a print ad or graphical online ad, we all reviewed it but google ad text was entirely in his purview. With that said, I still see it as a minor issue given the other advertising I've seen out there.

Ummmm, this is somewhat of a half truth. If you remember correctly, the only reason a refund was available was because of an error in your refund policy. For some people, it was saying a 14 day return policy was available while it was saying all sales are final for everyone else. You contended that there was never a refund available until this error was pointed out. Therefore that is when it was decided to offer a refund since there may have been some people who viewed this. This had nothing to do with believing it was buggy software.

You're right on that and I did muddle them in my head a bit as well. The refund issue with the store, where DR had changed the policy without letting us know because of a change in EU law, was indeed the prime reason for that coming to a head. You may recall that we immediately followed up with DR and investigated to find out why a policy that had always read "all sales are final" (which is typical for digital download sales from various companies, for obvious reasons) was suddenly different on part of the store. When we found out the answer we decided to offer the refund, but we didn't only offer it to people who purchased from the EU store. We offered it to all customers and the reason we made that decision was because of the post-release issues. That's were I confused our behind the scenes decisions with the initial cause of that issue in my initial post.

1. Logos that were not licensed were intially being used in the game and for some reason people didn't know that they were real college and pro logos.

IIRC, these were all handled pre-release and were a result of the guy who did the art for David before we came along making a few questionable decisions. Both we and David supported removing these once they were brought to our attention.

2. Although you said that you had direct involvement with beta testing, somehow a lot of the most obvious bugs got past you.

Guilty as charged. However, some of the most obvious bugs also only showed up in the last couple of builds. It's a moving target and we were doing very quick development and testing under severe time pressure to release it (since we'd already thought and announced that it was gold). A lot of that pressure came from the folks right here, unfortunately. If we revisited that experience again (I hope not, but if), we would have bit the bullet and kept it in development for more testing after those last minute fixes.

3. There was/is verbage on the description of the game that says there are rules for American Pro and college, yet the rules in the game didn't reflect the NFL or the NCAA at its initial release.

Where did you see this?

5. There was a staff member on another message board who called people thieves if they purchased any of their games from the bargain bin at a local computer store.

First I've heard of that, where did you see this? I don't see how M-F would even be in the bargain bin, as it was not a retail release.

Regards,

- Erik

Erik Rutins

12-28-2006, 02:45 PM

I'm no developer but seems to me it might have been a better idea to let this thread fade away.

I don't see that it's a great idea to let things go unanswered when they mischaracterize us or include mistaken assumptions. In the long run, that then becomes "truth" and is impossible to change. I'd rather take the heat in the short run, have the discussion and open a few eyes than just sulk in the corner.

Regards,

- Erik

Antmeister

12-28-2006, 02:55 PM

Where did you see this?

Here is the link:
http://www.matrixgames.com/news.asp?nid=299

First I've heard of that, where did you see this? I don't see how M-F would even be in the bargain bin, as it was not a retail release.

This was brought to my attention in the Maximum Football thread, although this was totally unrelated to this game. Someone linked to a thread to another game's forum in which a staff member basically called anyone a thief who purchased a game from a bargain bin since there is some kind of agreement with the store owner to sell that game at a certain price. I will try to find the thread to post here.

Erik Rutins

12-28-2006, 03:05 PM

Antmeister,

Here is the link:
http://www.matrixgames.com/news.asp?nid=299

It says "American Pro and Amateur" - that's about as generic a way of saying what it actually does that I can think of. We didn't claim to be identical to NFL or NCAA and the pre-release information pointed out that the customizable elements were things like field size, number of downs, points per score, etc. I don't recall this ever being portrayed as faithful down to the last detail to the exact rules of any particular league.

I think you can get very close to those league rules and I don't think the press release there is misleading. There are sports games out there for just about every sport that are very close to the official rules, but have some differences or some areas where they don't get into the same level of detail as the official rules do.

This was brought to my attention in the Maximum Football thread, although this was totally unrelated to this game. Someone linked to a thread to another game's forum in which a staff member basically called anyone a thief who purchased a game from a bargain bin since there is some kind of agreement with the store owner to sell that game at a certain price. I will try to find the thread to post here.

Ok, would be interested to see that. If any of our staff called customers "thieves" for wanting to buy from a bargain bin, I'd certainly like to have a few words with them about customer relations.

Regards,

- Erik

Antmeister

12-28-2006, 03:09 PM

Ok, here is the post that spcd had linked to from the Maximum Football thread:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=693470

quote:

Incredible. The audacity and sense of entitlement that statement betrays is nothing short of amazing. What other industry gets to compare legitimate customers with thieves?
In what other industry can retailers essentially say "sue us if you don;t like the fact we rip you off" and oh buy the way, if you try that, you'll never never get another product in out store ever again?

The fact you think the statment is so audacious indicates you are clueless about the depth to which some retailers have sunk to "move boxes off the shelves" (in many cases their sole "success metric"). The fact you were oblivious doesn't change the fact that buying from e-bay pirates or retail "dumpers" doesn't absolve you of moral responsibility for participating in de facto thievery.

What other than "thief" can one label somebody making their own copies of WITP and selling them on ebay for 4.99 Pounds UK? Or a store manager who, knowing that it is a breach of contract to sell a game at less the 30 dollars, wants to make shelf space and marks it $14.99 and blames the fact "its tough to get good help these days"?

If you, now aware of such tactics, take advantage of them then you are just as much a thief as a warez kiddee. Just like teh guy who buys stolen stereo equipment out of some guys trunk in a back alley. "I didn't know it was stolen" wouldn't cut it if a cop catches you. Unfortunaltey its about impossible to stop a bin dumper or e-bay rip off artist, other than to restrict the purchase outlet to online only and add a bunch of "report in" protections that can casue legit customers a lot of headaches.

And as was stated, we have an alternative to putting up with this BS. We just stop selling at retail, unless we think enough units will sell to make it worthwhile in the long run. Unfortunately the e-bay pirates are a bit tougher nut to crack.

I'm simply letting you folks know what is going on out there. If bailing form retail and going mostly on-line only to ensure we get the negotiated price for our goods demonstrates "audacity and sense of entitlement" then I guess you would show "audacity and a sense of entitlement" if you complained to your credit card company because you get charged 3 times the price marked on say a computer, and then cancelled your order because of it?

And here is the thread that the post was in to get more context:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=689359&mpage=1&key=

Antmeister

12-28-2006, 03:19 PM

Antmeister,

It says "American Pro and Amateur" - that's about as generic a way of saying what it actually does that I can think of. We didn't claim to be identical to NFL or NCAA and the pre-release information pointed out that the customizable elements were things like field size, number of downs, points per score, etc. I don't recall this ever being portrayed as faithful down to the last detail to the exact rules of any particular league.

I think you can get very close to those league rules and I don't think the press release there is misleading. There are sports games out there for just about every sport that are very close to the official rules, but have some differences or some areas where they don't get into the same level of detail as the official rules do.

And this is why I have a problem with the company. American Pro is not generic. There is only one American Pro football game and therefore you can't really say it's not the NFL. And if this was not the case, why is he currently trying to fix those things now.

That is very misleading for people who want to purchase the game and wondering why the clock is not stopping when the guy goes out of bounds in the last two minutes or why a play is being called a sack on a designated running play just to name a couple.

And you seem to forget that there were many more rules that were missing on the initial release, yet somehow they are being corrected. Why correct them if you aren't trying to get anywhere close to NFL rules?

Toddzilla

12-28-2006, 03:21 PM

much vitrol

Wow - if Jennifer Winter wasn't already hitched, I'd say we just found her soulmate.

Antmeister

12-28-2006, 03:23 PM

Wow - if Jennifer Winter wasn't already hitched, I'd say we just found her soulmate.

What?!?! I am already married......Oh you mean Mr. Vebber....sorry!
;)

Erik Rutins

12-28-2006, 03:23 PM

Ok, I read through the whole thing for context. That seems to have appeared while I was away at conventions, then locked before I returned, which I'm guessing is why I missed it.

It looks like Dave locked it and I assume therefore that he chatted with Paul already, but I'll bring it up to make sure.

For the record, we don't consider anyone who buys a copy of our game from a bargain bin a thief. It looks to me like Paul flew off the handle mainly at the folks who pirate game and sell illegal copies on E-Bay and at store managers who mark down below what's allowed by contract. What he was getting at is that if a customer wants to actually support us and our developers, there's a point where they should do a reality check before buying something that looks too good to be true as far as pricing.

I agree with this as far as E-Bay goes. I've seen way too much organized piracy online there and it's an ongoing issue. I disagree completely as far as stores selling legitimate copies. That's a cost of doing business with retail for us and as a customer, I'd expect you to buy a legitimate copy if you see it in the bargain bin. Paul could have simply made the point that very little if any of that comes back to us vs. a direct sale, but he crossed the line by combining that in any way with "warez" copies.

With all that said, I just want to say we appreciate every one of our customers and work hard to earn and keep your business. If you put this one comment by one staff member from 2004 in context with all the other comments posted by the rest of our staff in support of customers as well as our actions, I think it's clear that we are a customer-oriented company and that we do appreciate your business.

Regards,

- Erik

Shaun Sullivan

12-28-2006, 03:26 PM

Deattribution

12-28-2006, 03:26 PM

I don't see that it's a great idea to let things go unanswered when they mischaracterize us or include mistaken assumptions. In the long run, that then becomes "truth" and is impossible to change. I'd rather take the heat in the short run, have the discussion and open a few eyes than just sulk in the corner.

Regards,

- Erik

Actually, I agree with rkmsuf here. It was better to let it go.

Basically you've counter-claimed to clear your name, then when those claims were disputed all your following responses were 'oops, my bad, you're right'.

I feel comfortable dealing with companies that have their customers best interest in mind, even if it cost them a little in the short term - Matrix Games doesn't strike me, nor has it ever struck me, as one of those companies.

This does not bother me due to the fact Matrix doesn't publish any games except Puresim that I'd be mildly interested in, and even that game already has a solid alternative and competitor.

BrianD

12-28-2006, 03:27 PM

And this is why I have a problem with the company. American Pro is not generic. There is only one American Pro football game and therefore you can't really say it's not the NFL. And if this was not the case, why is he currently trying to fix those things now.

Well two, really...unless you want to tell Pumpy that his favorite sport isn't really a pro sport.

Erik Rutins

12-28-2006, 03:28 PM

And this is why I have a problem with the company. American Pro is not generic. There is only one American Pro football game and therefore you can't really say it's not the NFL. And if this was not the case, why is he currently trying to fix those things now.

For the purposes of a press release, what would you call a version of football with a 100 yard field, four downs, field goals, touchdowns and formations that are all like the NFL? We felt "American Pro" was a good generic term. Obviously, some folks feel misled by that. I'm sorry, but I can't think of a better way to describe the M-F American Rules mode. We never used the term NFL or said that it was just like NFL football, but it's pretty darn close.

And you seem to forget that there were many more rules that were missing on the initial release, yet somehow they are being corrected. Why correct them if you aren't trying to get anywhere close to NFL rules?

That's right, through ongoing free updates we're working to get it even closer to NFL rules, but I think at the initial release it was close enough that calling it "American Rules" vs. "Canadian" or "Indoor" was fine. We may have to agree to disagree on this, as I feel that in the absence of a better term we acted fairly in our description.

Regards,

- Erik

Draft Dodger

12-28-2006, 03:29 PM

excuses are the nails that built the house of failure...

Eaglesfan27

12-28-2006, 03:31 PM

excuses are the nails that built the house of failure...

Great quote. Where is that from?

Erik Rutins

12-28-2006, 03:32 PM

Deattribution,

Actually, I agree with rkmsuf here. It was better to let it go.
Basically you've counter-claimed to clear your name, then when those claims were disputed all your following responses were 'oops, my bad, you're right'.

That doesn't actually summarize all my replies or my initial counter-claims, but I'll let them stand on their own merits.

I feel comfortable dealing with companies that have their customers best interest in mind, even if it cost them a little in the short term - Matrix Games doesn't strike me, nor has it ever struck me, as one of those companies.
This does not bother me due to the fact Matrix doesn't publish any games except Puresim that I'd be mildly interested in, and even that game already has a solid alternative and competitor.

I'm sorry to hear that and I hope that other folks here won't form their entire opinion of us based only on comments in posts on this message board. Give the PureSim demo a try and see what you actually think of the game.

Regards,

- Erik

Eaglesfan27

12-28-2006, 03:42 PM

I'm sorry to hear that and I hope that other folks here won't form their entire opinion of us based only on comments in posts on this message board. Give the PureSim demo a try and see what you actually think of the game.

Regards,

- Erik

I can't speak for others, but my opinion of Matrix Games isn't based on just comments on here but the history of the company (some of the lowpoints which Antmeister summarized nicely) including the debacle that Maximum Football was/is, but certainly not limited to that debacle. While I applaud you for trying to spread some good PR here, you have had some horrible PR from people on your own board that work for your company. As others have said, fair or not, some will decide not to buy Pure Sim based on that association.

Antmeister

12-28-2006, 03:46 PM

Guys, I have to chime in and say that Erik is a super professional and nice guy to work with. I would not be at Matrix if I thought the people we jerks. In fact David Heath, the president, is probably one of the nicest guys I have ever dealt with in the industry, period. Heck, maybe he's too nice to a fault in being tolerant with some of the developers he's signed on. Regardless, he's a stand up guy, and so is Erik.

Please don't let one developer's initial dealings with the community and a marketing gaffe cement your opionion of the company as a whole. It's a small group of gamers doing what they love -- making and producing games.

Again, I apologize for losing my cool yesterday. I hope you guys will give me a pass on that one. Believe me, it's a rare occurance.

Shaun

As far as David Heath is concerned, I respect the guy. I have seen a complaint on a message board totally unrelated to Matrix and David addressed the complaint and took care of the guy. I give him major props for that considering the complaint was not addressed on their own site. And he has done that a number of different times too. So I have nothing bad to say about him.

It is just sometimes I would question the people working under him, but as Erik has addressed, it seems a lot of this was taken care of in-house. Since I have a lot of respect for what you have done, even so far as helping other developers, I will believe what you say about Erik.

I guess the prevailing feeling I get is that the image of the company seems more important than the image of the product. Now this is just my opinion, but I have only seen Erik when someone questions the publisher on this board. Even if you look in the Maximum Football thread, Erik didn't appear until people were taking issue with how Matrix handled things. Now that may not be the case, but that is just how I had always viewed it.

Regardless, I'll give him props for coming here and addressing the issues again. This is probably difficult for him to bite his tongue since he knows a lot more than we can ever know.

st.cronin

12-28-2006, 03:54 PM

Matrix would do well to forbid their employees from ever discussing Maximum Football ever again.

Antmeister

12-28-2006, 03:58 PM

For the purposes of a press release, what would you call a version of football with a 100 yard field, four downs, field goals, touchdowns and formations that are all like the NFL? We felt "American Pro" was a good generic term. Obviously, some folks feel misled by that. I'm sorry, but I can't think of a better way to describe the M-F American Rules mode. We never used the term NFL or said that it was just like NFL football, but it's pretty darn close.

Erik, seriously, you are just playing with words.

You think that the rules of American Pro Football and American Pro rules are different terms? An 100 yard field, four downs, fields, touchdowns and formations can explain any game from high school to the pros. By placing American Pro, Amateur, indoor, you are talking about the specific rules for each type.

And the arguement is even weakened by the fact that the Canadian rules were in the game at initial release, yet it did not say CFL. Are you going to tell me that there were a lot of CFL rules missing from the game? Uh...nope.
Most people thought you wrote American Pro rules since you couldn't say NFL without being licensed. I mean that is how all the other football games handle it, so why was this any different?

Erik Rutins

12-28-2006, 04:09 PM

You think that the rules of American Pro Football and American Pro rules are different terms? An 100 yard field, four downs, fields, touchdowns and formations can explain any game from high school to the pros. By placing American Pro, Amateur, indoor, you are talking about the specific rules for each type.

How would you describe it then, in bullet point format? Just "American Rules" or would that also cause confusion?

And the arguement is even weakened by the fact that the Canadian rules were in the game at initial release, yet it did not say CFL. Are you going to tell me that there were a lot of CFL rules missing from the game? Uh...nope.

Well, I'm telling you the actual intention. It doesn't surprise me that the Canadian rules were closer to the CFL than the American rules to the NFL as the developer is Canadian and personally a CFL fan. When we tested it though, the rule was not "must match NFL exactly" but that it should be close to the NFL rules and working logically.

Most people thought you wrote American Pro rules since you couldn't say NFL without being licensed. I mean that is how all the other football games handle it, so why was this any different?

If the other publishers use "American Pro" as a code phrase for "identical to NFL rules" then we made a mistake in using that phrase. For us, it was a good generic description and it probably got a few minutes of thought and review. There was no intention to mislead and from our perspective we never made claims that this was identical to the NFL, just close - as it could be close to college or the old USFL, etc. the rules set for NFL-style football is definitely "American" and supports some customizations that are unique to college or pros, but is not specifically of any league and we never tried to claim it as such.

When you say I'm playing with words, that's all this particular issue is really about. The words meant one thing to us and another thing to you - personally, if getting exact NFL rules is important to me, I'll post and ask the developer how close "American Pro" is to the NFL. Any such queries were honestly answered and have continued to be. While I can understand the general complaint, no communication is perfect (particularly when reduced to a press release bullet point) and this being a major issue that somehow shows us as untrustworthy rather than a minor communication gap I just don't understand.

Regards,

- Erik

Antmeister

12-28-2006, 04:32 PM

How would you describe it then, in bullet point format? Just "American Rules" or would that also cause confusion?

Okay:

Customize the field size, downs, scoring and formations.
Use generic or professional Canadian rules. I think these two bullet points would suffice.

Well, I'm telling you the actual intention. It doesn't surprise me that the Canadian rules were closer to the CFL than the American rules to the NFL as the developer is Canadian and personally a CFL fan. When we tested it though, the rule was not "must match NFL exactly" but that it should be close to the NFL rules and working logically.

Okay, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't your intention. I just thought it was funny that David Winters himself didn't agree with the description of the game he developed.

If the other publishers use "American Pro" as a code phrase for "identical to NFL rules" then we made a mistake in using that phrase. For us, it was a good generic description and it probably got a few minutes of thought and review. There was no intention to mislead and from our perspective we never made claims that this was identical to the NFL, just close - as it could be close to college or the old USFL, etc. the rules set for NFL-style football is definitely "American" and supports some customizations that are unique to college or pros, but is not specifically of any league and we never tried to claim it as such.

Actually I have never seen American Pro used since I haven't seen a game developed for two countries. Here they would just say Pro-Style rules, Pro rules, etc. By the way, this is just my complaint. I don't know if anyone else shares this feeling, but this had bothered me immensely. Take it as a grain of salt since I may be the lone dissenting voice.

When you say I'm playing with words, that's all this particular issue is really about. The words meant one thing to us and another thing to you - personally, if getting exact NFL rules is important to me, I'll post and ask the developer how close "American Pro" is to the NFL. Any such queries were honestly answered and have continued to be. While I can understand the general complaint, no communication is perfect (particularly when reduced to a press release bullet point) and this being a major issue that somehow shows us as untrustworthy rather than a minor communication gap I just don't understand.

Regards,

- Erik

Okay, understood and I will let this issue go. Just remember that this was my introduction to Matrix games which was through Maximum Football. I knew about the company though other games such as I of the Enemy, but since I never purchased it, or browsed through the forums, I didn't know much about the company. Based on the dealings with the staff, when people were trying to get more information about Maximum Football, I started to get an uneasy feeling as time went on. Like I mentioned before, I believe and somewhat still believe that the image of the company always seemed to trump the image of the product and that may take a while to shake off.

JPhillips

12-28-2006, 04:36 PM

Erik,

When you're in a hole it's best to stop digging.

As for Matrix, I've had some fun with your wargames, but generally I feel like they are overpriced. I have never purchased a Matrix Game and felt like I got a bargain. I know you have different games, but I always feel like I get more than I paid for when I buy from Paradox so I buy my most of my war type games from them.

Draft Dodger

12-28-2006, 05:38 PM

Great quote. Where is that from?

my wife. not sure where she picked it up.

Toddzilla

12-28-2006, 08:18 PM

FWIW, I would expect any Football game marketed in the United States that is described as having "Pro rules" - particularly "American" Pro rules - to have a rule set exactly that of the NFL. Anything less is disingenuous and purposefully misleading. To try and characterize any difference between "American Pro Rules" and the NFL as the result of a "minor communication gap" is some of the worst CYA I've seen, and it makes the issue at hand seem even more purposefully misleading than I'd felt before.

To a lesser degree, I would expect "Amatuer rules" to be similar to those of NCAA Division 1-A (college) football, but would understand if elements of Div II, Div. III, or high school were part of the equation.

Antmeister

12-28-2006, 08:28 PM

To a lesser degree, I would expect "Amatuer rules" to be similar to those of NCAA Division 1-A (college) football, but would understand if elements of Div II, Div. III, or high school were part of the equation.

Yeah, definitely agree with you here and that is why I didn't focus too much on this one. This one can be left more open to interpretation.

JonInMiddleGA

12-28-2006, 09:05 PM

I would expect any Football game marketed in the United States that is described as having "Pro rules" - particularly "American" Pro rules - to have a rule set exactly that of the NFL. Anything less is disingenuous and purposefully misleading. To try and characterize any difference between "American Pro Rules" and the NFL as the result of a "minor communication gap" is some of the worst CYA I've seen, and it makes the issue at hand seem even more purposefully misleading than I'd felt before.

Okay, since I have to give Erik some credit for making an effort here in this thread, I'll wonder out loud if there's maybe there's another explanation, one that doesn't have to involve anything intentionally misleading:

What if they simply don't know any better?

No, I'm not trying to be funny. I'm not trying to insult Erik or anybody at Matrix either. I'm not looking for a chance to be a random smartass. I'm genuinely wondering if sports simply isn't an area where they have a whole lot of expertise on staff?

I've wondered about that very possibility from the earliest reports about the condition of MF.

If you're willing to assume, even for the sake of discussion, that the effort on Matrix' part was genuine then wouldn't it make sense that one way the game hits the streets in the condition it was in is if there simply weren't a lot of people who knew any better? While that notion contradicts the possible explanation that Erik offers about changes made without being tested, my hypothesis would explain the difficulties in describing what the game was/wasn't and explain the agregious errors contained in the game at the same time.

DaddyTorgo

12-28-2006, 09:08 PM

Okay, since I have to give Erik some credit for making an effort here in this thread, I'll wonder out loud if there's maybe there's another explanation, one that doesn't have to involve anything intentionally misleading:

What if they simply don't know any better?

No, I'm not trying to be funny. I'm not trying to insult Erik or anybody at Matrix either. I'm not looking for a chance to be a random smartass. I'm genuinely wondering if sports simply isn't an area where they have a whole lot of expertise on staff?

I've wondered about that very possibility from the earliest reports about the condition of MF.

If you're willing to assume, even for the sake of discussion, that the effort on Matrix' part was genuine then wouldn't it make sense that one way the game hits the streets in the condition it was in is if there simply weren't a lot of people who knew any better? While that notion contradicts the possible explanation that Erik offers about changes made without being tested, my hypothesis would explain the difficulties in describing what the game was/wasn't and explain the agregious errors contained in the game at the same time.

true. they have always been a wargames/strategy company and definately not a sports company.